Mary Wollstonecraft: Challenges of Race and Class in Feminist Discourse

Author(s): Salma Maoulidi

Source: Women's Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, Activisms (Fall - Winter, 2007), pp.
280-286
Published by: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27649715
Accessed: 27-06-2016 09:55 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Feminist Press at the City University of New York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Women's Studies Quarterly

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT: CHALLENGES OF RACE AND
CLASS IN FEMINIST DISCOURSE

SALMA MAOULIDI

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote for revolutionary times, calling for revolu

tionary ideas to bring about new political and social relations. Human
rights ideals put forth by the French Revolution and the American Con
stitution inform her social outlook. To reform the world, she calls for uni
versality, instead of local manners and sensualist persuasions that present
an image of women devoid of strength in character or virtue. However,
her preoccupation is not solely with the place and rights of women but
more fundamentally with the privilege men are accorded. Wollstonecraft
asks, "In what does man's pre-eminence over the brute creation consists?"
(12). She dismisses using bodily strength as the sole criteria to justify the
superiority of man and implores the use of reason to challenge what she
regards as the subjective opinions of writers of the day. Rather than
according merit to these opinions she wants a common playing field
where the intellectual abilities and virtues of women are judged on the
same terms as those of men (36).
In her treatise Vindication of the Rights of Woman Wollstonecraft boldly
extends all rights due to men to women, arguing that the manner of times
have changed, formed by more reasonable principles. For Wollstonecraft,
equality of the sexes will ensure the emergence of a new social order, a
virtuous society. How relevant are these arguments today?

RIGHT PREMISED ON UNIVERSALITY

Wollstonecraft bases her work on philosophical, literary, and religious

texts, seeking to counter what she considers regressive viewpoints, in the
process becoming perhaps one of the earliest women to interrogate reli
gious text and dogma. She blames writers such as Rousseau and Dr. Gre
gory for advancing the notion that women are weak, devoid of solid
virtues, and therefore useless members of society (22). The perception
that women are slaves, playthings, loses them respect.

[ WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly 35: 3 & 4 (Fall/Winter 2007)]

? 2007 by Salma Maoulidi. All rights reserved.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAOUUDI 281

Wollstonecraft presents universal arguments that remain relevant

for women today. She argues for an array of social, political, and eco
nomic rights, among them the right to self-determination, the right to an
education, the right to choose a spouse, the right to participation, and the
right to a livelihood and to property (168). The context of the debate,
however, remains consonant with her times, as shown in her use of lan
guage and the basis for her analysis. For instance, to defend the rights of
women, she uses moral arguments derived from biblical texts or roman
tic notions and, rather than employing a rights-based framework,
appeals to reason.
Further, presenting a biased view of religion as it pertains to
women, she mentions Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Ironically,
Prophet Muhammad is generally seen by Muslims and non-Muslims
alike to have been a strong advocate of women's rights in conservative
Arabia. On the one hand, her remarks could suggest existing prejudices
regarding foreign civilizations having different moral standards?that
is, those that are not Christian or European. On the other, her assertion
could represent widely available interpretations of sacred texts about
women. Nevertheless, her readiness to engage with the cultural and
religious is pivotal in advancing the discussion of rights, particularly in
communities where culture or religion is the dominant framework in
operation.
The discussion of rights with respect to women contrasts that which
is transitory (the need for love and affection) and that which is perma
nent (the demand for respect and friendship).1 Wollstonecraft pushes for
neutral criteria?that is, other than sex?that distinguishes one human
being from another: virtue, reason, and knowledge. She demands a com
mon standard for measuring virtues, necessitating that they be founded
on the same principles and have the same aim. A common standard
would ensure that all virtues are of the same quality and degree (26).
Wollstonecraft asserts that women, like men, possess the ability to reason
and thus to become virtuous.

Nevertheless, while she presents a strong case for women's emanci

pation, the picture she paints of women is in sharp contrast to what she
advocates. The bulk of the treatise presents women as petty, without a
will of their own, content to play the role bestowed upon them. She is
adamant that women renounce being objects of beauty and that they
instead be willing to be viewed as intelligent. Obviously, her view of the

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
282 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT

position of woman very much represents the experiences of a particular

class of women?those from the middle class and the gentry, since only
they could be viewed in such terms, that is, as toys whose sole purpose
was to amuse their husbands. Surely, poor women don't have time for
trivia and pomp. Not only do they work alongside their men, but they
have additional burdens?reproductive roles?leaving very little time
for a display of charms or affections.
For Wollstonecraft, the use, or rather abuse, of power is central to
understanding human inequality. She argues that legitimizing the differ
ence between men and women by labeling it as natural is an expression of
power and a desire to concentrate power in a particular group. She is
very clear about the linkages between governance at the national and the
private levels, condemning all despotic attitudes and practices. In the
case of women, the body is central to her analysis of rights and what hin
ders a woman's ability to own her own mind and exercises multiple free
doms: the trapped body in domestic servitude; the sexual body to gratify
men's pleasure; the infantile body intellectually underdeveloped.

WHAT IS WOMEN'S STATUS IN SOCIETY?

Wollstonecraft strongly opposes the view that women only exist to serve
men, a view expressed by dominant philosophers of her time and reli
gions and still retained in most legal systems. Sensualists justify the con
tinued denial of human and legal rights to women on the grounds of
intellectual incapacity. They confine women to the domestic sphere,
which is by its very nature mundane, where they are deprived of their
liberty and any prospects of excelling (20). Since women are denied the
ability to improve their faculties, they are perceived as not being intelli
gent enough to make their own decisions, thus justifying the need for
male protection, as is still advocated for by conservative forces in states
such as Saudi Arabia and religious entities such as the Vatican. Woll
stonecraft speaks to the dilemma women face as their worth is reduced to
their beauty and reproductive roles. Rendering women as weak and
powerless beings denies them their soul; they are merely appendages of
men, their rights and obligations accruing from their relationship to
men, as wives, mothers, or daughters.
Clearly a modernist and a feminist, Wollstonecraft mercilessly chal
lenges ideas from antiquity that pertain to women. She does not accept
that the low status of women is divinely ordained, since God made all

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAOULIDI 283

things right. Rather, she argues, men use reason to justify prejudices that
breed inequality. She dismisses the biblical account of creation that posits
women as subjugated to men, derived as it is from the concept that
women originated in a man's rib. The most revolutionary aspect of her
treatise is her call for a new status for women?that of companions of
men. The relationship between the sexes should be founded on friendship
and respect; women should be regarded as full members of society. This
is critical because it rests on the important proposition that women are
rational beings and therefore endowed with intelligence. This assertion
turns on its head the age-old view propounded by philosophers, writers,
poets, and the clergy that women are weak and dependent creatures.2
Wollstonecraft's preoccupation is not only with emancipating
women; she wants freedom for all humankind (178). Significantly, she
notes how expediency compromises basic principles/natural rights even
when it seems illogical, unreasonable, to do so. The situation is more
critical in the absence of checks and balances to contain the actions of
men and rulers. Yet her political assessment of the use of force and poli
tics is confined not to the individual but to its social effect?maintaining
the social order. A class structure furthered through tradition, liturgy,
and ceremonies maintain the status quo. Wollstonecraft sees no hope in
relying solely on established practice or norms. Accordingly, she scorns
nobility and accuses it of using its status to demand blind submission,
thereby engaging in acts of tyranny.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF EDUCATION FOR WOMEN?

The point of knowledge and reason, Wollstonecraft argues, is to achieve

a higher purpose?happiness. Providence destined that humankind, men
and women both, acquire human virtues, that is, knowledge. Education
allows one to be independent, able to exercise one's own reason and dis
charge higher duties. Education is thus a fundamental right, a tool for
human liberation; and until knowledge is democratized and women are
rationally educated, the progress of human virtue and knowledge must
receive continual checks (40).
Wollstonecraft sees a direct link between the development of indi
vidual character and knowledge. She notes, "Education should be geared
at the cultivation of minds and teach children how to think" (163). Edu
cation is thus linked with individual ambition?how can women fulfill
their ambitions? Women's subordination is a result of their being denied

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
284 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT

knowledge. A proper education would enable a woman to support a sin

gle life with dignity. If her intellectual faculties are developed a woman
will be more able to guard her modesty.
Thus, education becomes a critical socializing agent for Woll
stonecraft. The different types of education availed of determine one's
future prospect. Women are socialized by what they see in their mothers.
Any attempt at formal education of women was disorderly, providing
them only with the superficial knowledge needed for functioning in soci
ety?for pleasing and obeying. Rather than learning methodologically,
women learn by the rote, acquiring manners before morals. "A mistaken
education, a narrow and uncultivated mind and many sexual prejudices
tend to make women more constant than men" (31). The conclusion for
Wollstonecraft was inescapable?strengthen the female mind by enlarg
ing it and there will be an end to blind obedience (24).
Rather than embarking on a specialized gender-segregated educa
tion, Wollstonecraft advocates for universal access to education irre
spective of sex or class. Uncharacteristically for her times, she favors
coeducation and vouches for a mix of public and private education, pro
viding equal opportunities (165, 167). Like educators of today, she thinks
education should be relevant, shaped by the opinions and manners of the
society in which students live. Nevertheless, she encourages separating
children by skill level, which in effect ensures continuation of a class
structure whereby children from more affluent backgrounds have a
greater advantage in excelling in the sciences or arts, while less affluent
children remain concentrated in the crafts, a less valued and menial sec
tor that ensures that they perpetually remain at the service of others.
Nevertheless, Wollstonecraft envisaged an education that is whole
some. The best education, she argued, strengthens the body and forms
the heart, since the exercise of mental faculties contributes to a stronger
body and more pleasant disposition. To enable this, she calls for a physi
cal and moral environment conducive of learning, facilitated in part by
democratizing education, with parents having a place and say in running
of schools. The state has a role in the provision of education, "so that it is
not left to whims of individual masters." Ironically, success in universal
izing access to basic education in most developing countries has pushed
international financial institutions such as the World Bank to liberalize
(read privatize) the education sector, with dire consequences for accessi
bility, not only for primary education but also for tertiary education for

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAOULIDI 285

the majority. Under these policies education is once again becoming a

privilege of the few, marginalizing women and the poor.
Moreover, the notion that education alone will enable a woman to
guard her modesty appears simplistic. If Wollstonecraft implies that
women (and men) who are educated would be more chaste, in greater
control of their raw sexual urges, then she would be disappointed by
modern feminist theory that, in discussing the body, advocates for a sex
ual revolution, for erotic justice, spearheaded in the 1960s, concretized at
the International Conference on Population and Development, and gain
ing more acceptability in ongoing efforts to check the spread of
HIV/AIDS. Otherwise, research continually establishes that all women,
irrespective of their social or academic status, are victims of domestic
and sexual violence.
Certainly the issue is more complex. Whereas the popular notion in
development circles is that an educated woman can exercise more choic
es with regards her body, namely, is likely to have sex late, have fewer
children, practice safe sex, and so on, the reality is quite different:
Women are still victims of repressive sexual politics not only at home but
also on campuses and other "male" institutions such as the military.
Women are still raped and sexually harassed on campus by students and
faculty and elsewhere by employers and supervisors. In an extreme
example, a first-year student, Levina Mukasa, at the University of Dar es
Salaam decided to take her own life after authorities failed to respond to
her complaints of sexual harassment by a third-year engineering student.
During student unrest in many countries, including Tanzania, women are
the first victims of physical and sexual violence.
Thus education seems to play a small role in facilitating mutuality
and respect between the genders, requiring advocates to move beyond
moral persuasion and instead call for more stringent institutional mea
sures to check violations against women that occur as a result of their
sex?for example, sexual harassment policies. Moreover, education
increasingly has come to acquire a functional role unrelated to the devel
opment of independent thought but, rather, churning out employees to
feed a globalized production system that pays little regard to human dig
nity. I thus concur with Mary Wollstonecraft in her call to democratize
education. However, the impetus should not only boil down to redefin
ing the purpose of education; it should also include the means through
which it is legitimized.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
286 MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT

CONCLUSION
In many ways Wollstonecraft's treatise captures the inherent contradic
tion and timeless debates on rights: not all women face oppression to the
same degree?in one situation mistresses may prevail in affections and
even status, whereas wives and daughters are deprived of liberty (24).
Nor are all men powerful; power depends on social, economic, ethnic,
and other factors. Clearly, both men and women have greater options
than they did in Wollstonecraft's day, but such liberties and opportuni
ties are meaningless if tyranny rules.

Trained in Law (L.L.M. from Georgetown) with a focus on human rights

and women's law, S ALM A MAOULIDI is the executive director of Sahiba Sis

ters Foundation, a women's development and advocacy network with

members in 13 regions of Tanzania concerned with the impact of cultur
al and religious discourse on women. Salma has published widely on legal
and development related issues from an African woman's feminist
activist perspective.

NOTES
1. This evokes present-day distinctions between basic needs and strategic
needs/basic rights. Wollstonecraft argues that the weak motivation to guarantee
equal rights to women is the tendency to view only the present needs of women not
their future fate.

2. Still, one wonders how she would have reacted to the body of research that
suggests that there is indeed a difference in the intellectual abilities of men and
women and studies showing that girls perform better in schools that are segregated
by gender.

This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:55:44 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms